0
Research Papers: Fluid-Structure Interaction

Transient Hydraulic Response of a Pressurized Water Reactor Steam Generator to a Feedwater Line Break Using the Nonflashing Liquid Flow Model

[+] Author and Article Information
Jong Chull Jo

Reactor System Evaluation Dept.,
Korea Institute of Nuclear Safety,
Yusung-gu,
Daejeon 34142, South Korea;
School of Mechanical Engineering,
Pusan National University,
63 Busandaehak-ro, Geumjeong-gu,
Busan 46241, South Korea
e-mail: jcjo@kins.re.kr

Jae Jun Jeong

School of Mechanical Engineering,
Pusan National University,
63 Busandaehak-ro, Geumjeong-gu,
Busan 46241, South Korea email: jjjeong@pusan.ac.kr

Frederick J. Moody

GE (Retired), Consultant
2125 North Olive Avenue D-33,
Turlock, CA 95382
email: fmoody@goldrush.com

1Corresponding author.

Contributed by the Pressure Vessel and Piping Division of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF PRESSURE VESSEL TECHNOLOGY. Manuscript received March 20, 2016; final manuscript received August 4, 2016; published online October 11, 2016. Assoc. Editor: Tomomichi Nakamura.

J. Pressure Vessel Technol 139(3), 031302 (Oct 11, 2016) (9 pages) Paper No: PVT-16-1052; doi: 10.1115/1.4034468 History: Received March 20, 2016; Revised August 04, 2016

In this study, a computational fluid dynamics (CFD) analysis of the transient flow field inside the secondary side of a nuclear reactor steam generator (SG) during blowdown following a feedwater line break (FWLB) accident is performed to evaluate the transient hydraulic loading (pressure) on the SG internals and tubes. The nonflashing liquid flow is assumed for a conservative prediction of the transient blowdown loading. The CFD analysis results are illustrated in terms of the transient velocity and pressure disturbances at some selected monitoring points inside the SG secondary side and compared with those predictions obtained from the existing simple analytical model to examine the physical validity of the CFD analysis model. As a result, the existing simple analytical model cannot yield the transient velocity and pressure disturbances and results in underestimation during blowdown as compared to the CFD calculations. Based on the present CFD analysis results, it is seen that an FWLB may result in excessive disastrous transient hydraulic loading on the SG internal structures and tubes near the feedwater inlet nozzle due to the significant pressure changes (pressure wave with very high amplitude) and abruptly increased velocity of water near the feedwater nozzle.

FIGURES IN THIS ARTICLE
<>
Copyright © 2017 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Saha, P. , Ghosh, A. , Das, T. K. , and Ray, S. , 1993, “ Numerical Simulation of Pressure Wave Time History Inside a Steam Generator in the Event of Main Steam Line Break and Feedwater Line Break Transients,” Transient Phenomena in Nuclear Reactor Systems, HTD-Vol. 245/NE-Vol. 11, ASME, New York, NY, pp. 131–140.
Jo, J. C. , and Moody, F. J. , 2015, “ Transient Thermal-Hydraulic Responses of the Nuclear Steam Generator Secondary Side to a Main Steam Line Break,” ASME J. Pressure Vessel Technol., 137(4), p. 041301. [CrossRef]
Hamouda, O. , Weaver, D. S. , and Riznic, J. , 2015, “ Loading of Steam Generator Tubes During Main Steam Line Breaks,” Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, Ottawa, ON, CNSC Contract No. 87055-11-0417 -R430.3, RSP-0305, pp. 1–171.
Jo, J. C. , and Moody, F. J. , 2016, “ Effects of a Venturi-Type Flow Restrictor on the Thermal-Hydraulic Response of the Secondary Side of a Pressurized Water Reactor Steam Generator to a Main Steam Line Break,” ASME J. Pressure Vessel Technol., 138(4), p. 041304. [CrossRef]
Hamouda, O. , Weaver, D. S. , and Riznic, J. , 2016, “ An Experimental Model Study of Steam Generator Tube Loading During a Sudden Depressurization,” ASME J. Pressure Vessel Technol., 138(4), p. 041302. [CrossRef]
Kang, K. H. , 2011, “ Experimental Study on the Blowdown Load During the Steam Generator Feedwater Line Break Accident in the Evolutionary Pressurized Water Reactor,” Ann. Nucl. Energy, 38(5), pp. 953–963. [CrossRef]
Choi, H. Y. , Lee, K. W. , and Seo, J. T. , 2010, “ NSSS Design Feature of Advanced Power Reactor Plus (APR+),” ASME Paper No. PVP2010-25586.
KHNP, 2011, “ APR+ Standard Safety Analysis Report,” Korea Hydro & Nuclear Power, Seoul, South Korea, pp. 10.4–17.
Moody, F. J. , 1990, Introduction to Unsteady Thermofluid Mechanics, Wiley, New York, pp. 80–81.
ANSYS, 2012, “ ANSYS CFX User's Guide-14,” ANSYS, Inc., New York.
Menter, F. R. , 1994, “ Two Equation Eddy-Viscosity Turbulence Models for Engineering Applications,” AIAA J., 32(8), pp. 1598–1604. [CrossRef]
Menter, F. R. , Kuntz, M. , and Langtry, R. , 2003, “ Ten Years of Industrial Experience With the SST Turbulence Model,” THMT-03, International Symposium on Turbulence, Heat and Mass Transfer, Antalya, Turkey, Begell House, Danbury, CT.
Weisman, J. , and Tentner, A. , 1978, “ Models for Estimation of Critical Flow in Two-Phase Systems,” Prog. Nucl. Energy, 2(3), pp. 183–197. [CrossRef]
Simones-Moreira, J. R. , Vieira, M. M. , and Angelo, E. , 2002, “ Highly Expanded Flashing Liquid Jets,” J. Thermophys. Heat Transfer, 16(3), pp. 415–424. [CrossRef]
Raznjevic, K. , 1976, Handbook of Thermodynamic Tables and Charts, Hemisphere Publishing, McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York.

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Simplified analysis model of the SG and the main feedwater line

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Discretized SG model with tube bundle

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Transient velocity responses to the FWLB

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Transient liquid velocity contours with the highest level of 4.5 m/s on the horizontal cross section of the SG model at the feedwater nozzle center level during the early blowdown time period of 0.01–0.1 s

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Velocity distributions at the elapsed time of 0.3 s

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

(a) Transient pressure responses on a long time scale at the five monitoring points to the FWLB and (b) transient pressure responses on a short time scale at the five monitoring points to the FWLB

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Transient pressure contours on the horizontal cross section of the SG model at the feedwater nozzle center level during the early blowdown time period of 0.01–0.1 s

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Simplified model of adjacent water/steam columns

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Pressure response at the monitoring point 4

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Pressure response at the monitoring point 5

Tables

Errata

Discussions

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In